Lawrence Rigging, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 12, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 1094 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lawrence Rigging , Inc. and Shopmen's Local Union
No. 455, International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO.' Cases 29-CA-2415 and 29-CA-2554
April 12, 1973'
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On August 25, 1972, Administrative Law Judge2
Max Rosenberg issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs,
and the Charging Party filed exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
1. We agree with the finding of the Administra-
tive Law Judge that Respondent did not violate
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by laying off and
refusing to recall employees Natale (Chris) DiBlasi,
Francesco Paolo DiBlasi, Martel Henry, Ottereno
Lavorata, Ramiro Quintero, Jesus Ramirez, Fred
Vasquez, and Gilberto Florez on June 3, 1971, and
by assigning more arduous duties to Jorge Cortes,
and thereafter laying him off on August 27, 1971.
2. The Administrative Law Judge further found,
and we agree, that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by interfering with, restraining, and
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and further
violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act by assisting,
supporting, and recognizing Local 5, International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO,3 as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the unit
employees. Moreover, we agree with the recommen-
dation of the Administrative Law Judge that a
bargaining ' order is warranted in light of the
widespread and flagrant nature of Respondent's
conduct.
3. The Administrative Law Judge found that
James Reilly, John Corbett, and Daniel Gardner did
1 Hereinafter referred to as Local 455.
2 The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972.
3 Hereinafter referred to as Local 5.
4 Sec. 2(11):
The term "supervisor" means any individual having authority, in
not possess or exercise the indicia of supervisory
authority outlined in Section 2(11) of the Act.4
Accordingly, he concluded that these individuals are
"employees" within the meaning of the statute who
appropriately belong in the bargaining unit.. We
disagree.
Phillip Dugan, the plant supervisor, is the only
admitted supervisor. However, it is clear that Reilly,
Corbett, and Gardner assign the work to the
employees, and the employees receive work assign-
ments and direction from no one else, as Dugan
rarely comes to the work areas. Carlos Acero testified
that he was informed by Dugan that Reilly, Corbett,
and Gardner were the foremen. Juan DeJesus
testified that Corbett chooses the place where he
(DeJesus) works, and tells him who his helper is.
DeJesus also testified that, while Corbett does work
himself, most of his time is spent telling the
employees what to do. Ottereno Lavorata stated that
Dugan told him to follow Reilly's orders. It also
appears that Reilly admonished Francesco DiBlasi.
Antonino DiBlasi testified that Reilly and Corbett
approved .time off without first consulting Dugan.
The average hourly rates of Reilly, Corbett, and
Gardner exceed by approximately $1 the next highest
wage rate. Reilly notified the employees of their
layoff on June 3, 1971. Gardner informed the
employees that the boss decided to grant a wage
increase, and it was Reilly who later notified the
employees that they could not get a raise because of
the wage freeze in effect. In these circumstances and
on the credited record evidence, we conclude that
Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner responsively assign,
discipline, and direct the work of the employees and
are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. To
hold otherwise would require a finding that over'40
employees are supervised by only the plant supervi-
sor, who rarely visits the work areas.
Having found that Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner
are supervisors, we conclude that Respondent is
responsible for certain conduct which is violative of
the Act. Thus, on two occasions Reilly asked
employee Jorge Cortes whether he favored Local 455
or Local 5. This conduct violates Section 8(a)(1).
Reilly also took an active role in establishing Local 5
as the bargaining representative for the unit employ-
ees, to wit, he collected dues. Corbett conveyed
Dugan's threat of a reduction in force and hours in
the event Local 455 were successful. Gardner
promised the employees a raise after the union
the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer , suspend , lay off, recall,
promote, discharge , assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or
responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances , or effectively
to recommend such action , if in connection with the foregoing the
exercise of such authority is not of merely routine or clerical nature, but
requires the use of independent judgment.
202 NLRB No. 159
LAWRENCE RIGGING, INC. 1095
contract was signed. The foregoing-conduct violates
Section 8(a)(2).5
The Administrative Law Judge, in determining that
Local 455 represented a majority of the unit
employees at the time it made its demand for
recognition on June 4, 1971, assumed, without
deciding, that the authorization card of Lachman
Raghunauth, an alien lacking working papers, should
be disregarded because he was not an "employee"
within the meaning of the Act. We find nothing in
the Act to support this position, and as the eligibility
of aliens to vote in Board elections is well estab-
lished,6 we shall count Raghunauth's authorization
card in determining whether Local 455 represented a
majority of the unit employees.
The Administrative Law Judge included C. Her-
bert, Lance Bedwell, Dennis Chancellor, James
Crosby, and T. Verblitsky in the unit because they
were temporarily separated from their employment,
had a reasonable expectancy of being reemployed,
and were so employed. These individuals were not on
the payroll list during the critical time, and the only
evidence relating to their employment status was
obtained through the testimony of Lucille Marino
Harvey, Respondent's assistant treasurer and head
bookkeeper, who was not in a position to testify as to
any agreements reached between Respondent and
any of the individuals alleged to be in layoff status.
We are therefore unable to conclude on the evidence
presented that these individuals had a reasonable
expectancy of reemployment on June 4, 1971, and we
shall not include them in the unit for the purpose of
determining whether Local 455 represented a majori-
ty of the unit employees.
From the above, we conclude that at the time
Local 455 made its demand for recognition it
possessed valid authorizations from 24 employees 7
out of a unit consisting of 40 employees.8 We
therefore find that on June 4, 1971, Local 455 was
the designated majority representative of Respon-
dent's employees.
The Chairman's appraisal of Respondent's miscon-
duct seems to us to be the same as our own, as is his
conclusion that a bargaining order is appropriate to
remedy that misconduct. We are rather less certain
that unlawful speech, such as threats, interrogation,
and promises, is necessarily less intimidatory than a
grant of benefits or a discriminatory discharge. For
example, the threat of plant closure should the union
be selected to represent the employees is bound to be
regarded as a most grave matter by the employees.
We do not subscribe to the Chairman's apparent
view that such a threat, accurately repeated and
widely disseminated, may be disbelieved and thus
fail to influence the employees, as the Chairman
expressed in his concurring opinion in General
Stencils, Inc., 195 NLRB No. 173. A somewhat
similar argument was made in N.L.R.B. v. Kaiser
Agricultural Chemicals, 82 LRRM 2455 (C.A. 5,
February 2, 1973), on the ground that because the
threats were made only by allegedly low-level
supervisors they were not serious, or not to be taken
seriously by the employees., The Fifth Circuit
disagreed, and affirmed the Board's bargaining order
remedy. Despite the attractiveness of "rules" for
guidance in this area which the Chairman suggested
in General Stencils, supra, we continue to think as the
Fifth Circuit did in Kaiser, supra, that "whether a free
and fair election is possible depends on the facts of
each case."
Accordingly, as the record establishes that Local
455 had valid authorization cards from a majority of
the unit employees at the time it requested recogni-
tion, we find, in agreement with the Administrative
Law Judge, that, by refusing Local 455's request and
thereafter engaging in the unfair labor practices
found, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and
(5) of the Act. We are convinced that none of the
traditional remedies available to the Board is
sufficient to erase the effect of Respondent's exten-
sive campaign to preclude Local 455 from becoming
the bargaining agent and to force the employees to
accept Local 5. We deem it highly unlikely that the
use of such remedies would enable us to hold a fair
election. Therefore, an order requiring Respondent
to recognize and bargain with Local 455 is necessary
to remedy these violations.9
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Lawrence Rigging,
Inc., of Corona, County of Queens, New York, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
CHAIRMAN MILLER, concurring:
I concur in my colleagues' conclusion that a
5 Even without these additional violations , the other conduct engaged in
by Respondent , as detailed supra, and relied on by the Administrative Law
Judge , clearly warrants the issuance of a bargaining order
6 American Smelting and Refining Company, 102 NLRB 1489, 1493
7 This figure includes Juan DeJesus, who did not sign an authorization
card, but joined Local 455 in May 1970 and remained a member
continuously through the period in question
8 This figure excludes , Reilly, Corbett , and Gardner, whom we have
heretofore found to be supervisors , as well as Bedwell , Chancellor , Crosby,
Herbert , and Verblitsky Even were we to include these 8 individuals in the
unit, Local 455 possessed 25 authorizations , including the additional
authorization of Herbert, in a unit of 48 employees.
9 See N L R B v Gissel Packing Company, 375 U.S 575, 614-615, Isaac
Putterman d/b/a Rockville Nursing Center, 193 NLRB 959
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining order is required here , but I do not find
their rationale therefor adequate.
In General Stencils, 195 NLRB No. 173, I set forth
suggested criteria for determining the appropriate-
ness of a bargaining order where a Gissel10 remedy is
sought . In that case , I stated I would contrast
situations where an employer grants significant
benefits or repeatedly engages in violations of
Section 8(a)(3), which action almost always calls for
the 'imposition of a bargaining order, with coercive
conduct limited to forms of speech , such as threats,
interrogation , and promises , which may or may not
warrant a bargaining order , depending on the
particular circumstances . I suggested , in such cases,
that we should answer three questions" in order to
determine whether application of a Gissel remedy is
warranted.
In this case the evidence is that there were
repeated , widely disseminated, threats made by
individuals capable of carrying them out. The threats
were of a nature likely to be seriously regarded by
the employees . For these reasons, I find a bargaining
order appropriate . The evidence leading me to this
conclusion may be summarized as follows:
When Respondent received Local 455's demand
for recognition , Dugan, the plant manager and
highest Respondent official around , interrogated
employees, threatened layoffs, and implied that the
Company "would run out of business" if Local 455
were successful . Dugan also told an assembly of
Respondent's employees that Respondent wanted
Local 5 rather than Local 455, and that Local 5 was a
good union with good benefits. Dugan introduced
Local 5's representative who, in Dugan's presence,
and without disavowal by him, stated that, unless the
employees selected Local 5, the plant would be
forced to terminate operations . During this meeting,
Dugan was asked what would happen if the
employee did not sign for Local 5 and he replied,
"You know what will happen. You better sign."
Dugan answered another question stating, "We have
a local 5 union , and then if we sign for that union, we
will continue working, we will have more benefits, or
we have nothing, we can't work anymore."
Supervisor Corbett also told several employees that
Dugan had instructed him to announce that, if Local
455 were successful, Respondent would bring the
shop down to 12 or 15 men and that hours would be
cut.
On August 20, Respondent posted a notice reciting
that employees were obligated to pay dues to Local 5
on pain of losing their jobs and being suspended
from Local 5's parent organization.
Considering Dugan's authority as plant manager,
the pervasiveness of Respondent 's threats , the serious
nature of the threats, and the continuous nature of
Respondent 's campaign , it is my opinion that such
interference with the free exercise of employee choice
prevents the conduct of a free and fair election or
other traditional remedies. For these reasons, I
concur with my colleagues that the order to bargain
is appropriate.
10 N L R B v Gissel Packing Company, supra
II What actions were threatened) Were the threats , considering their
source , their deliberateness and their specificity, likely to be seriously
regarded by employees') Were the threats disseminated among the
employees')
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAx ROSENBERG , Trial Examiner : This case , with all
parties represented, was tried before in Brooklyn, New
York, on January 24, 25, 27, and 28, and February 1, 2,
and 4 , 1972, on an amended complaint of the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an
amended answer filed thereto by Lawrence Rigging, Inc.,
herein called the Respondent .' The issues raised by the
pleadings relate to whether Respondent violated the
provisions of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3 ), and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , by certain
conduct to be detailed hereinafter . At the conclusion of the
hearing, the parties waived oral argument . Briefs have been
received from the General Counsel and the Respondent
which have been duly considered.2
Upon the entire record made in this proceeding,
including my observation of the witnesses who testified, I
hereby make the following:
1. FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
Respondent , a New York corporation , maintains its
office and principal place of business in Corona , county of
Queens, State of New York, where it is engaged in the
manufacture , sale, and distribution of steel smokestacks
and related products . During the annual period material to
his proceeding , Respondent purchased and caused to be
delivered to its place of business , steel and other materials
valued in excess of $50,000, of which materials valued in
excess of $50,000 were delivered to its place of business
directly from States of the United States other than the
State of New York . I find that Respondent is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Shopmen 's Local Union No. 455 , International Associa-
tion of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called Local 455, and Local 5, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders,
Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO , herein
I The complaint , which issued on December 23, 1971 , is based upon
charges filed and served on June 7 , 1971, in Case 29-CA-2415, and
additional charges filed and served on October 7, 1971, in Case
29-CA-2554
2 The General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the record in
certain minor respects is hereby granted
LAWRENCE RIGGING, INC. 1097
called Local 5, are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees regarding rights guaranteed to them
in Section 7. The complaint further alleges that Respon-
dent ran afoul of Section 8(a)(2) by rendering unlawful
assistance and support to Local 5. The affirmative
pleadings also charge that Respondent offended the
provisions of Section 8(a)(3) by laying off and refusing to
recall employees Natale (Chris) DiBlasi, Francesco Paolo
DiBlasi, Martel Henry, Ottoreno Lavorata, Ramiro
Quintero, Jesus Ramirez, Fred Vasquez, and Gilberto
Florez, on June 3, 1971, and by assigning more arduous
duties to Jorge Cortes (and thereafter laying him off on
August 27, 1971), because they joined and assisted Local
455. Finally, the complaint alleges that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing and refusing to recognize
and bargain with Local 455 on and after June 4, 1971, as
the exclusive representative of its production, maintenance,
and shipping and receiving employees.3 Respondent denies
the commission of any labor practices banned by the Act.
The facts are not essentially in dispute and I find them to
be as follows.
On May 21, 1971,4 employees and brothers Antonino
and Chris DiBlasi visited the office of Local 455 where
they met with President William Colavito and expressed
their desire that Local 455 organize Respondent's plant.
Colavito explained the organizational procedures to the
men and provided them with blank authorization cards
with the instruction that- they solicit the signatures of their
fellow employees. Thereafter, Antonino and Chris, togeth-
er with brother Francesco Palo DiBlasi, distributed the
designations to employees at the shop and, between May
26 and 28, received signed authorizations from 24
employees.5 So far as this record stands, no member of
Respondent's official family observed, or otherwise be-
came aware of, this activity at the time. At a meeting called
by Colavito on May 28, the cards were turned over to his
possession. In addition to these authorizations, the record
establishes and I find that employee Juan DeJesus had
joined Local 455 in May of 1970, and remained a dues-
paying member of that organization until August. At the
conclusion of this meeting, Colavito announced that Local
455 had obtained signed designations from a majority of
the work complement and that he proposed to contact
Respondent and demand formal recognition. It is uncon-
troverted and I find that, on May 28, Local 455 possessed
authorizations from a total of 25 individuals in the unit.
'At approximately 6 a.m. on June 3, Colavito and
Business Agent John Steinhauser visited Respondent's
plant to seek out Plant Supervisor Philip Dugan to press
Local 455's demand for majority recognition. Steinhauser
accompanied Colavito on this mission because the former
was acquainted with Dugan as a result of previous
organizational campaigns at the installation. When Colavi-
to and Steinhauser arrived, they sought out the plant
supervisor. However, Dugan was absent from the plant, in
consequence of which the union representatives left the
premises without speaking to Dugan or any other manage-
ment official regarding their quest for recognition. Later
that afternoon, Colavito dispatched a letter to Respondent
advising that Local 455 represented a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit and requesting a
collective-bargaining session. The letter also recited that, in
the event Respondent harbored any doubts as to the
Union's exclusive status, it was ready and willing to prove
that status to Respondent.
Meanwhile, at 8 a.m.,on June 3, James Reilly, whom the
General Counsel contends is a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, approached alleged discnminatee
Otterend Lavorata at his work station and handed him a
layoff slip. Lavorata visited Dugan to inquire into the
reason for his loss of employment, and Dugan remarked
that the layoff occurred because "there wasn't any work."
That same morning, while alleged discriminatee Francesco
DiBlasi was working in the yard, he overheard Reilly call
to some employees and inform them that they were being
laid off. Reilly then turned to Francesco and stated that he,
too, was being placed in layoff status "because we got no
work." Reilly added that Respondent had not received its
anticipated shipment of steel and that this happenstance,
coupled with the breakage of a "cherry picker," warranted
the layoff. Sometime during the morning, an unidentified
individual informed alleged discriminatee Martel Henry
that the latter had been placed in layoff status. Henry
called upon Dugan to verify this personnel action and
Dugan reiterated that Henry had been laid off because
"When you have less amount of men working the shops
you get more work done and things are slow now." At
11:30 a.m., Reilly approached Antonino DiBlasi and
related that Antonino's brother, Chris, had been laid off.
Because Chris was at home due to illness, Reilly requested
that Antonino relay this information to his brother. Shortly
thereafter, Antonin went to Dugan's office to ascertain
why Chris had lost his job. Dugan replied that the layoff
was due to the fact that "they don't have a lot of work"
and Dugan was dissatisfied with Chris' performance as a
mechanic. According to Antonino, Dugan returned to the
former's work station at 1 p.m. and reported that Chris was
an "instigator" because "he told the people what to do
about their rights . . . he tried to pull a trick with the
Union, and that's no good for the company." Additionally,
on June 3, Respondent laid off employees Jesus Ramirez,
Gilberto Florez, Jose Vasquez, and Ramiro Quintero.
These employees were not summoned to the witness stand
by the General Counsel.
I do not credit the testimony of Antonino DiBlasi
regarding Dugan's statement that Chris was laid off
because he believed that Chris was an "instigator" who
"tricked" employees into embracing Local 455, because I
3 The parties stipulated and I find that all production, maintenance, and purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
shipping and receiving employees of Respondent at its Corona, New York, Act
plant, exclusive of boilermakers (outside field employees), office clerical 4 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein fall in 1971
employees, sales employees, professional employees, guards, and all 5 For the most part, the designations were procured at some distance
supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the from the plant
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
deem it implausible . So far as this record stands, Dugan
was totally unaware that Local 455 had made any inroads
in obtaining the membership of Respondent 's employees
prior to June 4 when representatives of that organization
visited the plant and demanded recognition . Moreover, it is
undisputed that none of Respondent 's supervisors ob-
served the solicitation by the DiBlasi brothers on May 26
and May 28, or otherwise gained knowledge of these
efforts. Accordingly , I find and conclude that Lavorata,
Francesco and Chris DiBlasi , Henry, Ramirez , Florez,
Vasquez, and Quintero were laid off on June 3 solely due
to economic considerations and not because of their
engagement in activities on behalf of Local 455. I therefore
conclude that , by laying off these individuals , Respondent
did not violate the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
I shall therefore dismiss this allegation in the complaint.
Continuing the narrative , Local 455 President Colavito
entered Respondent 's plant at 6:30 a.m. on June 4 and
engaged Dugan in a conversation . After identifying
himself, Colavito proclaimed that his labor organization
had obtained signed designations from a majority of the
men and requested exclusive recognition . At this juncture,
Colavito inquired as to why the Respondent had laid off
the eight employees on the preceding day. Dugan replied
that this action was necessitated by slack business
conditions . When Colavito asked if the men would be
reemployed, Dugan answered in the affirmative , stating
"In a week or two." Dugan then remarked , "what do you
want here anyway? This is Boylan 's," an apparent
reference to the fact that Dugan surmised that Respon-
dent's employees appropriately belonged under the wing of
Local 5, of which an individual named Boylan was the
principal officer . Colavito rejoined , "You don't have a
union in here , now," and Dugan agreed . Colavito then
stated that "a majority of the guys authorized us to
represent them , and we are here to discuss that with you."
Dugan replied , "The boss is not here . He is out of town
and I have to go back inside ." According to Colavito, he
reached the conclusion that his union constituted the
majority representative at the shop because he had learned
that Respondent maintained 44 timecards , including that
of Dugan , and Local 455 possessed 25 representational
authorizations.
Following this conversation , Colavito telephoned the
headquarters of Local 5 . Boylan was not at his office.
However , Colavito lodged a complaint with another
official that Local 455 had already organized Respondent's
employees and eight of them had been laid off the
preceding day. Colavito suggested that Local 5 and Local
455 get together and discuss the situation . Although the
Local 5 official promised to do so, no further dialogue
ensued.
At 8 a.m . on June 4, after Colavito 's visit to the plant,
Dugan summoned employee Juan DeJesus to the office.
DeJesus testified and I find that Dugan inquired, "What
are you going to, do, now that the 455 is coming in?"
DeJesus replied that he planned to "vote for them because
that is my union ." Dugan remarked that "if you are going
to stick with Local 455 , I have to lay you off." Displaying a
Local 5 authorization card to DeJesus , Dugan stated that
the shop should be represented by Local 5, adding that
because "this is a small company . . . we can't afford to
have two-to have Local 455 in here . If we do , we would
run out of business ." DeJesus then declared that "he was
going to play neutral . I wasn ' t going to vote for none of
them."
At approximately 9 a.m. on June 4, James Reilly asked
employee Jorge Cortes whether he favored Local 455 or
Local 5 . Cortes responded that he supported Local 455.
Upon receiving this intelligence , Reilly instructed Cortes to
proceed to Dugan 's office . At 10 a .m., Dugan and Reilly
called all employees then on duty to report to the office, a
number fixed by the record as between 15 and 17 . Present
in the office , in addition to the employees and Dugan and
Reilly, were John Corbett , Daniel Gardner, whom the
General Counsel also contends are statutory supervisors,
and Alfred Rogers, business agent for Local 5. Dugan
opened the discussion by stating that he desired to install
Local 5 into the shop because Local 5 was a "good union"
which would offer "good benefits ." Dugan concluded that
the men could join that labor organization , and turned the
meeting over to Business Agent Rogers. Rogers placed
Local 5 authorization cards on the table in the office and
solicited the membership of the individuals in attendance,
announcing that the men would receive more money than
they were currently earning if they , executed Local 5's
designations . He also warned that , unless the employees
selected Local 5, Respondent would be unable to erect its
smokestacks at the field sites, with the result that the plant
would be forced to terminate operations . Reilly was the
first to accept the invitation of Dugan and Rogers to sign a
card . Rogers invited Dugan to do likewise , and Dugan
replied that he had already signed a designation. Dugan
thereupon commenced to solicit the hesitant or recalcitrant
employees to join Local 5. Thus, he advised employee
George Crichlow that a vast majority of the work
complement had executed cards. When Crichlow stated
that he had already joined Local 455 and inquired what
would happen to the men who had done so , Dugan replied,
"You know what is going to happen. You better sign the
card . Everybody sign a card." Rogers also informed
Crichlow and the assemblage that they would be dis-
charged if they did not join Local 5 . Turning to DeJesus,
Dugan claimed that Local 5 had obtained 50 percent of
Respondent's membership and cautioned that "If you
don't sign already, later on you have to pay three hundred
dollars for a union book or we have to lay you off. If you
sign now, it will cost you" less. Dugan then addressed
himself to Jorge Cortes and, with DeJesus interpreting
from English to Spanish , advised that "we have a good
Union . We have a Local 5 Union , and then if we sign for
that Union , we will continue working , we will have more
benefits or we have nothing. We can 't work any more."
Similar remarks were uttered by Dugan to employees
Carlos Acero and Antonino DiBlasi . Dugan also instructed
employees Lachman Raghunauth , Gheorghe Badila, and
David Cohen to join Local 5. As a result of the efforts of
Dugan and Rogers at this meeting , all of the individuals in
attendance executed cards on behalf of Local 5.
Events abided until June 8. On that date , Respondent's
Vice President Arne Jacobsen mailed a letter to Local 455,
LAWRENCE RIGGING, INC.
which was received on June 10 or 11, and which recited
that:
Replying to your letter of June 3, 1971, I wish to inform
you that, to the best of my knowledge, the men in our
shop signed application cards for the Boilermakers
Shop Local Union # 5.
As I see it, at the present time, it is now a Union
problem and not a Employers problem.
Local 455 received no further communications from
Respondent thereafter, other than in the course of a
discussion at the Board's Regional Office on some
undisclosed date.
On June 11, while Cortes was at work, James Reilly
approached and inquired as to which union the former
desired to represent him. A short time thereafter, John
Corbett told several employees that Dugan had instructed
Corbett to announce to them that, if Local 455 succeeded
in organizing the employees, Respondent would "bring the
shop down to twelve or fifteen men . . . . He [Dugan] said
that hours will be cut down to forty hours a week. He said
that there will be no overtime."
DeJesus testified that, on or about June 19, he met
Dugan and three other employees in a Brooklyn bar.
DeJesus asked whether Dugan intended to recall any of the
men who had signed Local 455 cards on June 3 and who
had been laid off on that day. According to DeJesus,
Dugan answered that "I wouldn't hire none of them
because they are instigators . The ones that brought Local
455 in." In this connection Carlos Acero testimonially
claimed that, while Rogers and Dugan were attempting to
sign up the employees for Local 5 on June 4, Dugan told
DeJesus that "we shouldn't think that our friends who were
fired were going to come back because they weren't going
to come back ...." The complaint alleges that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, not only by laying
off Natale (Chris) DiBlasi, Francesco DiBlasi, Martel
Henry, Ottoreno Lavorata, Ramiro Quintero, Jesus Rami-
rez, Fred Vasquez, and Gilberto Florez on June 3,6 but by
thereafter failing to recall them to work. However, at the
hearing, the General Counsel himself proposed a stipula-
tion, which was entered into by all parties, to the effect that
Gilberto Florez was laid off on June 3 and recalled on June
10; that Jesus Ramirez was laid off on June 3 and was
offered reemployment on August 4, to which offer he did
not respond; that Fred Vasquez was laid off on June 3, was
recalled to work on August 18, was again laid off on
August 26, and was offered reemployment on October 22,
but did not reply to the offer; and that Ramiro Quintero
was laid off on June 3, recalled to work on June 10, was
again laid off on August 20, and reemployed on September
16, but did not report for duty until October 9, and then
was laid off on October 15. The General Counsel further
agreed that Martel Henry was recalled to work on August
11, was laid off on August 26, and again offered
reemployment on October 22. He also acknowledged that
Chris and Francesco DiBlasi were afforded an opportunity
by Respondent to return to duty. In light of the
stipulations of the parties, I do not credit the testimony or
DeJesus and Acero in the foregoing regard. I find and
conclude, as testimonially reported by the General Coun-
1099
sel's witnesses , that Respondent temporarily laid the eight
employees off on June 3 for lack of work and promised
that they would be rehired in "a week or two," and, with
respect to at least seven of the eight alleged discriminatees,
that promise was kept despite the fact that they were
adherents of Local 455. I therefore conclude that the
General Counsel 's assertion that Respondent failed to
recall the discriminatees for illegal reasons lacks merit, and
I shall dismiss this allegation.
On or about August 20 , a notice appeared on Respon-
dent's bulletin board over the timeclock , and remained
posted for about a month. The notice recited that the
employees were obligated to pay dues to Local 5 on pain of
losing their jobs and being suspended from Local 5's
parent organization . In consequence of the notice , employ-
ees paid the assessed amounts to that local. During the
same period , Daniel Gardner and James Reilly spoke to
the employees in groups of five or more and informed them
that the "boss" had decided to give them a wage increase
in advance of negotiating a contract with Local 5. Gardner
promised one group, which included employee Acero, that
the men would receive a raise from $3.25 to $3.75 per hour.
Gardner added that, once a contract was negotiated, they
would receive as much as $4.60 to $4 . 80 an hour.
Approximately a week later, Reilly reported to the
employees that no wage escalations would immediately be
forthcoming because of the Federal pay freeze, but he
promised that their wages would be increased when the
freeze was lifted.
Sometime in September , Rogers , Local 5's business
agent , conducted a meeting in the shop prior to lunchtime.
The employees were summoned to the meeting by Dugan.
In addition to the work complement , Dugan , Reilly,
Corbett, and Gardner were present . Rogers opened the
session by commenting that Respondent and Local 5 had
not reached a collective -bargaining agreement because the
Respondent's owner had died. Rogers added that a
contract would nevertheless be forthcoming because a new
official had taken over the management reins. Rogers
inquired as to which of the men desired to assist him in
negotiations , and Reilly volunteered , along with three
other employees . Rogers advised the newly appointed .
committee to canvass the sentiment of the employees
regarding their contract demands . Thereafter , Reilly
enlisted the committee membership of Herman Woodroffe,
who questioned employees concerning their desired con-
tract terms, and recorded their responses.
I turn next to a consideration of the facts surrounding
the General Counsel's assertion that Respondent discnmi-
nated against employee Jorge Cortes in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by imposing more menial tasks upon him
and harassing him at work, and by laying him off on
August 27, because of his activities on behalf of Local 455.
The evidence discloses that Cortes was first hired on
September 13 or 14 , 1969, and worked until September 8,
-1970. He was rehired on March 15, when Dugan offered
him a wage increase from $3 . 15 to 3.50 per hour . Cortes
performed the duties of a machinist , burner, and piece-
setup man . According to Cortes , he signed an authoriza-
tion card for Local 455 in May and, prior thereto, had been
6 1 have heretofore dismissed this allegation from the complaint
1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
informed that his work performance was good. However,
during June and thereafter, James Reilly told Cortes to
sweep the floor, pick up junk, and load trucks. Cortes
claimed that he had never previously performed this type
of work. He conceded that he worked at these chores for
only 2 to 3 hours per day, that the work was less arduous
than his normal duties, and that he continued to receive
the same rate of pay. At one point, Cortes asked Reilly why
the former had been assigned to these tasks, to which
Reilly replied that "he had nothing else to offer" Cortes.
Commencing in June, Reilly observed Cortes' work and
noted the time spent on the various operations. Reilly
urged Cortes to do better, and informed Cortes that he was
checking on Cortes' volume of production.
Around August 20, Cortes approached Dugan and
inquired into the number of pieces which he was required
to produce. Dugan responded that Cortes must extend his
efforts. Cortes then requested a wage raise, to which Dugan
replied that Respondent was not according anyone an
increase. Dugan added that, "You want to stay here, you
have to do more. If you don't like it, you have to stay
home." On August 27, shortly before quitting time, Dugan
advised Cortes that the latter was being laid off. When
Cortes demanded the reason for the separation, Dugan
replied "You know why." On the following day, Cortes
returned to the plant and spoke with Louie Mayo, the shop
steward. Mayo remarked that "very soon the Union
president will be here and we will get-the Union president
will be there and we will get benefits and the contract and
everything," after which Cortes asked why he had been
laid off. Mayo stated, "You don't recognize the Union," an
apparent reference to the fact, according to Cortes, that he
had not paid his fees to Local 5.
While the issue is not entirely free from doubt, I am
nevertheless not convinced that the General Counsel has
sustained his burden of showing by preponderant proof
that Respondent singled out Cortes for a reassignment of
duties and layoff because he espoused the cause of Local
455. While Cortes joined Local 455 in May, along with 24
other cohorts, he was not particularly active in that
organization's campaign. Although Cortes was questioned
by Reilly on June 4 as to his umon sympathies and
indicated that he favored Local 455, DeJesus was similarly
interrogated and gave a parallel response, yet his terms and
conditions of employment were not thereafter altered. As
heretofore found, Respondent laid off eight employees on
June 3 because of slack business conditions. In view of this
economic circumstance, it is not unreasonable to infer that
Respondent attempted to keep Cortes gainfully employed
by assigning him to other than his normal tasks, particular-
ly in view of the fact that he continued to draw the same
rate of pay and performed, on a limited basis, less arduous
duties. Moreover, Dugan's refusal to award Cortes a wage
increase on August 20 was consistent with the findings
heretofore made that Respondent did not afford wages
increases to any employee during that period because of
proscriptions set forth in the Federal wage-freeze policy.
Furthermore, there is no probative evidence to establish
that Shop Steward Mayo's statement that Cortes had been
laid off for failing to embrace Local 5 by the payment of
fees reflected management's reason for severing Cortes
from its employ. In sum, I find that the General Counsel
has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence
that Respondent altered Cortes' working conditions and
laid him off on August 27 because of his activities on
behalf of Local 455. I therefore conclude that, in its
dealings with Cortes, Respondent did not offend the
provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Inasmuch as the supervisory status of James Reilly, John
Corbett, and Daniel Gardner impinges upon the questions
as to whether Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain
with Local 455 as the majority representative of its
employees, and whether Respondent is to be held legally
accountable for the acts and utterances of these individu-
als, I now turn to an evaluation of that status.
Reilly, Corbett and Gardner performed layout work and
fits. They instructed employees in the manner in which
they fulfilled their assignments . However, it is abundantly
clear on this record, according to General Counsel's
witness, Juan DeJesus, that all decisions regarding the
allocation and assignment of work emanated from Philip
Dugan, concededly a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act. Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner engaged in manual labor
and discharged the same duties as the other employees.
They had no authority to hire or fire employees nor did
they possess any authority to grant time off or discipline
employees in the true sense of the word, although they may
have scolded employees for "goofing off." Neither were
they authorized to award wage increases . On the entire
record before me, I am convinced and find that the duties
of Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner were essentially those of
traditional leadmen, and that they did not possess or
exercise the indicia of supervisory authonty outlined in
Section 2(11) of the Act. Accordingly, I conclude that these
individuals are employees within the meaning of the statute
who appropriately belong in the collective-bargaining unit.
I also conclude that , in light of their employee status,
Respondent was not responsible for their utterances and
conduct which allegedly intruded upon the employees'
rights under Section 7.
This is not to say that Respondent had not otherwise
indulged in conduct which collided with the employees'
Section 7 rights. Based upon the findings heretofore made,
I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by the following:
(1) Dugan's coercive interrogation of Juan DeJesus on
the morning of June 4 as to "what are you going to do, now
that the 455 is coming in?"
(2) Dugan's threat to DeJesus on June 4 that "if you are
going to stick with Local 455, I have to lay you off," and
Dugan's threat that the plant would be closed if the
employees did not select Local 5 as their bargaining agent.
(3) Dugan's promises to the employees assembled at the
meeting on June 4 that they would receive "good benefits"
if they joined Local 5, and his threats that the men who did
not sign a card on behalf of Local 5 would be deprived of
their employment.
(4) Dugan's threat to several employees, conveyed
through employee John Corbett on June 11, that Respon-
dent would reduce its work complement to a figure of
between 12 and 15, would curb the number of weekly
LAWRENCE RIGGING, INC.
hours worked to 40, and would eliminate overtime, if Local
455 succeeded in gaining their collective support.
(5) Dugan's promise, made through James Reilly and
Daniel Gardner to employees on or about August 20, that
the employees would receive a wage increase in advance of
negotiating a contract with Local 5, and the promise made
through Gardner that the employees would receive
additional, increases when a contract was consummated
with` Local 5.
(6) Dugan's sponsorship of, and participation in, the
meeting of June 4, during which Local 5's business agent,
Rogers, warned that the plant would be closed if the men
failed to select Local 5 as their bargaining representative.
I further conclude that Respondent rendered unlawful
assistance and support to Local 5. Thus, after Local 455
had made its demand for recognition on the morning of
June 4, Respondent, without questioning Local 455's
majority status or requesting to assess Local 455's strength
by checking its signed authorization cards, invited Local 5
Business Agent Rogers to the plant later that day. When
Rogers arrived, Dugan summoned his employees to a
meeting conducted on company time. At the outset, Dugan
lauded Local 5 as a "good union" which could provide
"good benefits," and he, himself, signed a designation in
the presence of the employees, after urging them to do so.
Dugan thereupon turned the meeting over to Rogers. With
Dugan's obvious approval, Rogers positioned blank
authorization cards on a table and exhorted the men to
sign up, accompamed with promises that the men would
receive' higher wages if they joined Local 5, and with
threats that the plant would be closed if they failed to do
so. Dugan personally solicited the signatures of the hesitant
employees with such statements as "You better sign the
card. Everybody sign a card," and with threats that they
would be discharged if they refused to'join Local 5.
Thereafter, Respondent continued to furnish unlawful
assistance and support to Local 5. These activities were
manifested by a notice which was posted in the plant on
August 20 reciting that the employees were obligated to
pay dues to Local 5 on pain of losing their jobs. As a result
of this warning, the employees complied with Local 5's
dues requirements. On or about the same date, Respondent
advised the employees that it had decided to afford them
wage increases immediately, and that higher rates would be
paid to them when it concluded a contract with Local 5.
Again, in September, Respondent knowingly allowed
Rogers to conduct another meeting at the shop on
company time where he selected a negotiating committee.
By the foregoing acts, I find and conclude that
Respondent assisted and supported Local 5 in a manner
offensive to Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
I next turn to a consideration of the salient issue
presented in this proceeding, namely, whether Local 455
represented a majority of the unit employees when it made
its demand for recognition on June 4. It is undisputed, and
I find that, on May 28, Local 455 possessed 24 signed
authorization cards and, with the inclusion of Juan
7 This figure includes the eight alleged discnmmatees While I have
heretofore found that they were laid off for economic reasons on June 3, I
have also found that their layoff was temporary in nature and I therefore
conclude that their cards should be counted in ascertaining Local 455's
1101
DeJesus, who had previously joined that Union, the total
authorizations amounted to 25.7 It is also undisputed and I
find that, during the payroll period ending May 31, 42
employees, including Reilly, Corbett, and Gardner, whom
I have heretofore found to be employees rather than
supervisors within the meaning of the Act, numerically
constituted the appropriate unit on that date. Should these
figures stand up, there is no question but that Local 455
had achieved majority status on June 4.
However, Respondent maintains that the unit compo-
sition should include Phil Dugan, Jr., and individuals
named Golok and Hastings, on the ground that they were
employees who entered the Armed Forces of the United
States, and were on military leave on' June 4. I find no
merit in this argument. In Supersweet Feed Co., 8 the Board
held that a union's status as a majority representative may
be determined without reference to the number of
employees in the unit who were members of the Armed
Forces, inasmuch as the interest of the currently working
employees outweighed the remote interest of the military
personnel in establishing present terms and conditions of
employment. Moreover, the record discloses that, with
respect to Dugan, he did not commence working for
Respondent until June 7, 1971, some 3 days after Local 455
sought recognition. Accordingly, I shall exclude Dugan,
Golok, and Hastings from the unit.
Respondent also contends that Lance Bedwell, Dennis
Chancellor, James Crosby, T. Verblitsky, and an individual
named Vinci, should be included in the unit because they
were in temporary layoff status and remained employees of
Respondent on June 4, even though they were not then
working. In this connection, Respondent points to the
treatment accorded to C. Herbert, as indicated in the
marginal reference below. The record shows that Bedwell
suffered injuries to his fingers as a result of an industrial
accident at the plant on June 22, 1970. Following his
recovery, Bedwell was victimized by a drug addiction
problem. Apparently, after treatment, he returned to work
in November. Dennis Chancellor left his employment on
May 3 in the mistaken belief that he would have to
undergo surgery. He returned to work in September, after
learning that the operation was unnecessary. James Crosby
left his job with Respondent on April 5 because of personal
problems, with the assurance that he could return at any
time when they were resolved. He resumed his employment
in October, and was laid off on November 1. T. Verblitsky
was employed by Respondent in 1968. Because he was an
alcoholic, he worked continuously for Respondent during
the periods of his sobriety until March, when he was
committed to a sanitarium. He returned to duty on August
16. Finally, Vinci worked as a regular part-time employee
from February 1970 until June 7, averaging approximately
18 hours per week during that period. Accordingly, I
conclude that Bedwell, Chancellor, Crosby, and Verblitsky
should be included in the umt because, like Herbert, they
were temporarily separated from their employment, had a
reasonable expectancy of being reemployed, and were so
majority status The figure further includes the card of C Herbert. who was
hired by Respondent in January, laid off in May, and recalled in August
8 62 NLRB 53, 54 See also Pholobell, Inc, 158 NLRB 738, 741
I
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reemployed. I shall also include Vinci, due to my
conclusion that he was a regular, part-time employee on
June 4. With the foregoing inclusions, I find that, on June
4, the unit was comprised of 47 employees.
Finally, Respondent asserts that the cards of six signers
on behalf of Local 455 should be disregarded on the
ground that they were aliens who did not possess lawful
employment status. The only evidence which Respondent
adduced on this issue sprung from the testimony on cross-
examination of Lachman Raghunauth that he was an alien
who had entered this country on a student visa and did not
possess a "green card" entitling him to seek or hold gainful
employment. Apart from argumentative assertion, Respon-
dent presented no evidence to sustain its contention that
the designation card of any other employees should be
voided on this basis. Assuming, without deciding, that the
card of Raghunauth should be disregarded because he was
not an "employee" within the meaning of the Act, Local
455 nevertheless possessed a total of 24 authorizations out
of a unit of 46 employees when it made its recognitory
demand on June 4, I therefore find that, on that date,
Local 455 was the designated majority representative of
Respondent's employees.
Accordingly, as Local 455 had obtained valid authoriza-
tion cards from a majority of unit employees when it
demanded recognition on June 4, I conclude that, by
refusing that demand, and thereafter engaging in the
above-chronicled compendium of unfair labor practices,
which evinces to me a total disregard by Respondent of the
right of its employees to select their own collective-
bargaining agent without interference from their employer,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Under
these circumstances, I am persuaded and conclude that the
issuance of a bargaining order flowing in favor of Local
455 is necessary in this proceeding, because, in my opinion,
a fair election cannot now be held to resolve the
representational issue .9
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close and
intimate relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recom-
mend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
I have found that Respondent illegally assisted, support-
ed, and recognized Local 5 as the collective representative
9 See NLRB v Gesell Packing Co, Inc, 395 U S 575, 614-15,
Rockville Nursing Center, 193 NLRB 959
10 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
of its employees. I shall therefore recommend that
Respondent withdraw and withhold recognition from
Local 5, unless and until that labor organization has been
certified by the National Labor Relations Board.
I have also found that Respondent refused to bargain
collectively with Local 455 as the authentic majority
representative of its unit employees. I shall therefore
recommend that, upon request, Respondent bargain with
Local 455 as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit. As previously indicated, this
bargaining order is deemed warranted in light of the
widespread and flagrant nature of Respondent's conduct
heretofore found.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and
conclusions, and the entire record made in this case, I
hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 455 and Local 5 are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section (5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
conduct proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By assisting, supporting, and recognizing Local 5 as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employ-
ees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the
Act.
5. All production, maintenance, and shipping and
receiving employees of Respondent at its Corona, New
York, plant, exclusive of Boilermakers (outside field
employees), office clerical employees , sales employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the purview of Section 9(b) of the Act.
6. By refusing, on June 4, 1971, and thereafter, to
recognize and bargain with Local 455 as the exclusive
collective-bargaining agent of the employees in the above-
described appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER 10
Respondent, Lawrence Rigging, Inc., of Corona, county
of Queens, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
LAWRENCE RIGGING, INC. 1103
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
sympathies for Local 455.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge, and with the
closure of the plant, if they rejected Local 5 as their
collective representative and selected Local 455 to repre-
sent them.
,(c) Promising economic benefits to employees condi-
tioned upon their rejection of Local 455 as their exclusive
representative, and threatening the employees with dis-
charge if they declined to sign authorization cards on
behalf of Local 5.
(d) Threatening employees that the work complement
will be reduced, that the number of weekly hours of work
will be curtailed, and, that overtime will be eliminated, if
Local 455 succeeds in gaining their collective support.
(e) Promising employees increased benefits upon the
execution of a contract with Local 5.
(f) Sponsoring and participating in meetings of employ-
ees on company time in which representatives of Local 5
warn employees that the plant will be closed unless they
join and support Local 5.
(g) Assisting, supporting, and recognizing Local 5 as the
exclusive bargaining representative in the appropriate unit
described as follows:
All production, maintenance, and shipping and receiv-
ing employees of Respondent at its Corona, New York,
plant, exclusive of boilermakers (outside field employ-
ees), office clerical employees, sales employees, profes-
sional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined
in the Act,
unless and until said labor organization has been certified
by the National Labor Relations Board as such representa-
tive.
(h) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 455 as the
exclusive representative of the above-described appropriate
unit, upon request, regarding wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment.
(i) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by lawful agreements in accordance
with the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from Local 5 as
the collective representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit described above, unless and until said
labor organization shall have been certified by the Board
as the exclusive agent for those employees.
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 455 as
the collective-bargaining representative of the unit employ-
ees and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed contract.
(c) Post at its place, of business in Corona, county of
Queens, New York, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."" i Copies of said notice, drafted in English
and Spanish, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 29, shall, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent, be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Mail signed copies of the aforesaid notice, depending
on the native tongue of the individuals involved, to all
former employees, at their last known address, who worked
for Respondent from June 4, 1971, to date.
(e) Notify the Regional Director, for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.i2
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
dismissed as those allegations not specifically found herein.
11 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
12 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in wnting, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coercively ask our employees regard-
ing their feelings about being represented by Shop-
men's Local Union No. 455, International Association
of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO, because this is a private matter for our
employees as guaranteed by the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the loss
of their jobs, or with closing our plant in Corona,
because they decide to join and embrace Local 455 to
represent them in their negotiations with Lawrence
Rigging, Inc., instead of Local 5, International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT promise better wages to our employees
if they refuse to select Local 455 to represent them, and
we will not threaten our men that they will be
discharged if they refuse to support Local 5.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we will
reduce the number of our employees at the shop, lower
the number of hours of work each week, or cut out
overtime work, if they continue to support Local 455.
WE WILL NOT promise our employees better econom-
ic benefits when and if we sign a contract with Local 5.
WE WILL NOT promote and take part in meetings of
our employees on company time so that officials of
Local 5 can warn you that our plant will be closed
unless our employees join and support Local 5.
WE WILL NOT assist, support, or recognize Local 5, to
become your bargaining representative.
1104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain with
Local 455, as your truly selected bargaining representa-
tive and, if a contract is agreed upon, we will sign it and
agree to put into effect its wages, hours, and other Dated By
terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, except to the extent that
such rights may be effected by lawful agreements
permissible under this Federal law.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain
from becoming or remaining, members of any labor
organization.
LAWRENCE RIGGING, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, 16 Court Street, 4th Floor,
Brooklyn, New York 11241, Telephone 212-596-3535.